If voters repeal the state’s casino law in November, some developers could lose millions in fees already paid to the state.

“There is no mechanism to return license fees,” Massachusetts Gaming Commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said in an email.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in June that a referendum seeking to repeal the 2011 expanded gambling law can appear on a statewide ballot in November. The law allows for up to three casinos and one slots parlor in Massachusetts.

The court’s decision comes less than four months after the Gaming Commission awarded the state’s lone slots license to Penn National Gaming, which paid a $25 million licensing fee. Construction is already underway in Plainville, where the developer plans to open a slots parlor on the grounds of Plainridge Racecourse.

“Our focus is not on seeking a refund,” said Eric Schippers, Penn National’s senior vice president for public affairs. “Our focus is on continuing with construction of our $225 million economic development project and on winning in November.”

Earlier this month, the Gaming Commission conditionally awarded the Western Massachusetts casino license to MGM Springfield. Concerned with the prospect of a potential repeal, the developer negotiated an agreement with the Gaming Commission that will delay final licensure and payment of the $85 million casino licensing fee until after the ballot question is decided.

When MGM Springfield first proposed the agreement in April, the ballot petitioners viewed it as a sign their movement was gaining steam.

“The $85 million application fee isn’t much to a company which earned nearly $1 billion off the backs of its customers last year, but it is telling that our grassroots movement has made them blink about this bad bet,” Repeal the Casino Deal chairman John Ribeiro said at the time.

MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis said the company is prepared for a statewide campaign.

“We are confident that our urban revitalization project in Springfield, one of the Commonwealth's most prominent Gateway Cities, is something to which all Massachusetts voters can relate,” he said in a statement.

Repeal the Casino Deal hailed the SJC’s ruling Tuesday.

“In ruling to allow the referendum, the justices have upheld the standards of the initiative petition law, a law that defines the very core of American democracy, the citizens’ right to vote on matters of substantial importance to the entire population,” Repeal the Casino Deal attorney Thomas O. Bean said.

The court decision overturns Attorney General Martha Coakley’s previous finding that the ballot question is unconstitutional because it could cause casino license holders to lose property without compensation.

Gaming Commission chairman Stephen Crosby said Tuesday that the panel will continue the licensure process. It has not yet awarded licenses in the Greater Boston and Southeastern regions.

Page 2 of 2 - “As the Commission has demonstrated in the past, we have the flexibility to achieve progress in the licensing and regulatory process even in an atmosphere of uncertainty and we will continue to do so,” Crosby said in a statement. “Although the Commission has not taken a position on the repeal, we are committed to implementing the law as it currently exists in a manner that is participatory, transparent and fair.”

In addition to licensing fees, the state has also collected nonrefundable $400,000 application fees from 12 applicants. A portion of those fees was used to conduct background checks of the developers.

A Wynn Resorts proposal in Everett and Mohegan Sun’s proposed casino in Revere are seeking the Greater Boston license. KG Urban Enterprises and Foxwoods are vying for the Southeastern license.

State Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, who supports casino gambling, said he anticipates lawsuits if the law is repealed in November.

“I would expect that if you have a number of private businesses that are in the gaming industry that have complied with the law as it existed and did what Massachusetts required of them to participate in a system that they thought was going to be there, and then to have all the rules change afterward, I would think many of these entities … certainly have a path to a recourse through legal action,” Pacheco said.